I tend to agree with Mark's comments below. An additional but smaller
point incentive for microwave contacts is a good idea to continue to
encourage microwave activity. However, remember how this original thread
started last weekend - it was a proposal for developing a paper-to-cabrillo
program and better result turn-around-time to a smaller existing contest
such as the UHF contest or the concept of a new All-Band Sprint. Not
changes to one of the big 3 ARRL VHF contests (at least, not yet). I
really like the idea of an 8 hour all band sprint and I think it would be a
good testing ground for making changes to an existing contest.
I have pasted the first couple of posts about the subject below after
Mark's comments.
73,
Ed K3DNE
At 01:23 PM 5/28/2003 -0400, Hoffman, Mark wrote:
>Some things to consider:
>
>3) QSOs made above 900MHz require more dedicated construction than
>50-432MHz. They should be rewarded with SOMETHING. Yes, you can BUY a
>transverter off-the-shelf - but you can't buy a SYSTEM off the shelf. You
>still need to put it all together. That's where the incentive could be lost.
>
>One point per QSO 50 - 432MHZ
>Two points per qso 900MHz and above.
>
>That's the most we should do.
At 08:39 AM 5/25/2003 -0400, Ev Tupis (W2EV) wrote:
Imagine that the ARRL provided a simple Paper-to-Cabrillo program (the one
that
looks just like their paper VHF-UHF-EME logs, but outputs in Cabrillo
format for
submittal) and then provided an incentive to submit in Cabrillo format...like
making the official results available 60-days (or sooner) after the conclusion
of the contest.
What would that be worth to you?
Let's find out! Can we think "outside of the box"? Try one of these on for
size, both would still benefit from that Paper-to-Cabrillo system noted above:
--- 1 ---
Make the August UHF Contest a Cabrillo-only event...and release the official
line-scores in 45-days. (!)
--- 2 ---
Don't wanna mess with existing events? How about this...establish a new
contest
as a testing ground: the "ARRL All-band VHF Sprint". One saturday, from 6:00pm
until 11:00pm local time. QSO's take place during the activity hours (see
footnote). All log submittals take place using Cabrillo. Recap published in
QST (like now), but the line-score results are released 30-days after the
close
of the event (15-days to submit, and 15-days to process).
Ev, W2EV
At 10:53 AM 5/25/2003 -0400, Ed Kucharski wrote:
Ev,
I like both ideas, especially the All-band VHF Sprint which is an idea that
came up a couple of times during the recent brain storming that took place
secondary to the decrease in activity posts. I had been giving this a lot
of thought lately too. An all band sprint of a 6 - 8 hour duration could be
a really fun and fast paced event.
Getting the results sooner would be great and maybe set a new standard for
faster result turn-around times for all ARRL contests.
Instead of a 5 hour event, I'd suggest an 8 hour event after daylight
savings time starts (3pm - 11pm or so) to give the rovers some time to move
around between a few grids before it gets too dark. It would also be a
great opportunity to implement some of the other ideas that came out of the
on-line discussions such as a multi-op low power category instead of a
limited-multi category and have scoring with less emphasis on microwaves
(like 1 point for any qso between 50-450MHz and 2 points for any qso above
902MHz OR 1 or 2 points for all qso's regardless of band).
What's the next step?
73,
Ed K3DNE
At 10:34 AM 5/25/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> > Getting the results sooner would be great and maybe set a new standard for
> > faster result turn-around times for all ARRL contests.
>
>There are already steps that have been taken to start reducing the result
>timing with respect to the log submission deadline. The automated
>processes for many of the contests are now mature enough to support this,
>although this might not yet be true for the VHF contests (they were the
>last ones to move to computer log processing).
>
>Also, having the results on the web has done two things. In addition to
>removing the publishing and mailing delay, it has made the scores and
>the results two different entities - which means the scores can be publised
>before the written article.
>
>Two of the biggest hurdles are:
>
>1. Not all logs are submitted electronically. And so far, the ARRL (and
>other major contests sponsors) have not chosen to go to a "electronic
>only" requirement. In fact, I am not sure of any contest that has, other
>than some very small contests.
>
>2. Even some electronic logs are not correct. People don't always have
>the latest versions of their program and don't respond quickly to either
>robot messages or personal requests for the correct format.
>
>For the contests I am involved with for the ARRL, I believe the results
>are clocking in about one or two months sooner than before.
>
>There are smaller contests, such as the NCJ CW Sprint, where the results
>were on the web about 48 hours after the log submission deadline. To
>do this takes a lot of work during the submission deadline, to keep on
>top of the logs. This might not be practical for the ARRL, where they
>are probably focused on getting the results pulled together for some
>other contest and can't divide their focus. It also isn't practical
>when the number of submissions gets very large.
>
>73 Tree N6TR
>tree@kkn.net
|